01.06.2015 Views

Actuarial Modelling of Claim Counts Risk Classification, Credibility ...

Actuarial Modelling of Claim Counts Risk Classification, Credibility ...

Actuarial Modelling of Claim Counts Risk Classification, Credibility ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Bonus-Malus Scales 197<br />

under the financial balance constraint<br />

Er lin<br />

L = E = 1<br />

⇔ E = + EL ⇔ = E − EL<br />

It suffices to minimize<br />

[ ( (<br />

))]<br />

˜ = E exp − c − E − L − EL <br />

Differentiating ˜ with respect to and equating to zero yields<br />

[<br />

(<br />

E L − EL exp − c ( − E − L − EL ))] = 0<br />

⇔<br />

∫ +<br />

0<br />

s∑<br />

( (<br />

))<br />

l − EL exp − c − E − l − EL l dF = 0<br />

l=0<br />

which has to be solved numerically to get the value <strong>of</strong> (and hence <strong>of</strong> ). Convenient<br />

starting values for the numerical search are provided by (4.17).<br />

4.6.4 Numerical Illustration<br />

In this section, we give numerical examples <strong>of</strong> computation <strong>of</strong> bonus-malus scales<br />

when using an exponential loss function. We compare the results with those obtained<br />

previously.<br />

In order to be able to compare the results, we have computed the relativities associated<br />

with the same severity factor c = 1. These results are given in Table 4.13 for the −1/top,<br />

−1/ + 2 and −1/ + 3 systems and Portfolio A. Specifically, Table 4.13 gives the relativities<br />

obtained with an exponential loss function with severity parameter c = 1, with and without a<br />

priori risk classification, as well as the analogues for the −1/ + 2 and −1/ + 3 systems. As<br />

was the case with the quadratic loss function, we see that a priori risk classification reduces<br />

the dispersion <strong>of</strong> the relativities.<br />

We observe that the relativities computed when no a priori ratemaking is in force give<br />

bigger bonuses when the policyholders are in level 0 but also impose bigger maluses in the<br />

other levels. Indeed, when no a priori ratemaking is in force, the a posteriori correction<br />

must be more severe in order to distinguish between good and bad drivers. On the contrary,<br />

when an a priori ratemaking is in force, the correction applied with the a posteriori tariff<br />

must be s<strong>of</strong>ter because a greater part <strong>of</strong> the risk is already taken into account in the a priori<br />

ratemaking.<br />

Influence <strong>of</strong> the Loss Function<br />

We can also compare the results obtained when using the quadratic loss function and<br />

when using the exponential loss function (with different values <strong>of</strong> c). These are given in

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!